Let me be frank, I'm getting really tired of the arguments that Bioware is somehow single-handedly destroying the credibility of videogames as art by the fact that they are changing the ending of Mass Effect 3 over fan outcry. At best this is extreme hyperbole, and at worst it is a total fallacy. What's making me even more sad about the whole thing is that normally level headed people, like our very own Moviebob, are suddenly turning into raging lunatics over prospect that Bioware is somehow about to irreparably damage the reputation of gaming. Nothing can be further from the truth.
The idea that art is somehow an unequivocal expression of its creator, and that it is blasphemous to change it because of commercial disapproval seems extremely silly to me. Just think back a few centuries, art was a luxury, and it was commissioned and created to the specifications of it's buyer. Back then if the buyer did not like the artist's interpretation of his demands do you know what the artist did? He changed his art so he would get paid. Somehow this didn't prevent painting or sculpture from being considered high forms of art and expression, even if it was tailored to the wishes of it's buyer.
Changing a piece of media for "fans" isn't a new concept either. Hell, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle originally killed off Sherlock Holmes back in "The Adventures of the Final Problem" but brought him back from the dead years later because of fan outcry and because he needed the money, effectively changing the ending of the series. Did doing this sully literature or do irreparable harm to the integrity of literature as an art-form? It certainly did not.
Think about the film industry or the music industry, not a single script, screenplay, or lyric goes unsullied by producers and corporations to create a slightly broader appeal. There isn't a single movie that wasn't altered from the writer's original vision in order to fit the screen, nor is there a single song in the world that sounds exactly as the musician who wrote it intended it to sound. Are these not works of art despite them not being direct expressions of their creators' wills?
As many people pointed out, this isn't even the first time something like this has happened in videogames, where fan outcry made a developer change their decision about the direction their videogame should go. Cole's appearance in inFamous 2 was changed back to his original form because of fan outcry, and most people only considered this a good thing, with many praising Sucker Punch for listening to fan's complaints. Bethesda also retroactively changed Fallout 3's infamously bad ending with DLC, exactly how Bioware is planning, and no one batted an eye. Only good things were said about this change, and people didn't get up in arms about stifling artistic expression.
If there was ever a time to have been angry, it should have come before now, because Bioware isn't setting a precedent here, it's just following one that has already been set. Bioware isn't doing any damage to the videogame industry buy changing the ending of Mass Effect 3, all they are doing is making their own game better, making a little money, and making their fans happier while doing it.
Honestly, would it be better or more artistic if Bioware shunned their fans and instead took the Ninja Theory approach and told fans to fuck off because they were doing everything the way they wanted and didn't care what anyone thought? Of course not, because acting that way is ASININE.
Dirty Hipsters: normally level headed people, like our very own Moviebob
Let's not go crazy now.
Edit: to be clear, there are times I agree with MovieBob (probably less than I disagree, but they definitely happen). Nevertheless, I wouldn't call him level-headed one way or the other. He's pretty reactionary.
Dirty Hipsters: The idea that art is somehow an unequivocal expression of its creator, and that it is blasphemous to change it because of commercial disapproval seems extremely silly to me. Just think back a few centuries, art was a luxury, and it was commissioned and created to the specifications of it's buyer. Back then if the buyer did not like the artist's interpretation of his demands do you know what the artist did? He changed his art so he would get paid. Somehow this didn't prevent painting or sculpture from being considered high forms of art and expression, even if it was tailored to the wishes of it's buyer.
If he was lucky to get paid
Just a few centuries ago if an artist did a bad job with a sculpture, and the King/Queen deemed it offensive they'd cut the artist's hands off. It would have been a job they spent their entire lives training toward.
Dirty Hipsters: normally level headed people, like our very own Moviebob
Let's not go crazy now.
But if I went crazy maybe half the things on the Internet would make sense.
No, no. Only about a quarter of it will make sense. For half you have to go bat-shit insane. For all of it to make sense well you have to turn your brain off entirely.
As for the original topic, artists change their shit all the time, sometimes to please themselves, sometimes to please others, and if they intend to use their art to make money well... then it better be some damn good art. If you want to make your art into a product for sale, you have to be aware of what the buyer wants. There's a big difference in the art you make for personal enjoyment and the art you make for public consumption.
What I find interesting is that whenever George Lucas fucks with his own art everyone is allowed to get into a tizzy and say it's wrong and George Lucas is messing is up. I don't know how many times I've listened to people grieve over Lucas changing this or that in a movie. But then again, not a Star Wars fan so maybe I don't realize the difference.
Changing a piece of media for "fans" isn't a new concept either. Hell, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle originally killed off Sherlock Holmes back in "The Adventures of the Final Problem" but brought him back from the dead years later because of fan outcry and because he needed the money, effectively changing the ending of the series. Did doing this sully literature or do irreparable harm to the integrity of literature as an art-form? It certainly did not.
True, but a couple points:
1: Conan Doyle did not go back to the book after he finished it and wrote it a new ending. He just ret-conned the entire thing in a different book. That is not what people who demand a change to the ending want. What they want is to have Conan Doyle go back and rewrite the ending to the book.
2: By that time, literature had been around much longer as was a much more well regarded and established artist medium. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of games.
Also,
Think about the film industry or the music industry, not a single script, screenplay, or lyric goes unsullied by producers and corporations to create a slightly broader appeal. There isn't a single movie that wasn't altered from the writer's original vision in order to fit the screen, nor is there a single song in the world that sounds exactly as the musician who wrote it intended it to sound. Are these not works of art despite them not being direct expressions of their creators' wills?
There is a difference between editing a script before a movie is completed and released to the public, and going back to something after the fact to change it around.
The whole thing has just been blown out of proportion. The Mass Effect 3 ending was complete and utter crap but it wasn't as bad people have been going on about, the rest of the game was apparently good so even though the ending sucked I wouldn't say it was the "End of writing in videogames FOREVAH!1!1!1!1" like some people seem to think.
As for changing the ending, I don't think it's going to destroy writing in games. I would prefer they didn't change it but it's not going to be a big deal if they do, unless you make a big deal out of it that is.
I'm getting tired of reading hyperbole as 'hyper-bowl'.
Dandark: The whole thing has just been blown out of proportion. The Mass Effect 3 ending was complete and utter crap but it wasn't as bad people have been going on about, the rest of the game was apparently good so even though the ending sucked I wouldn't say it was the "End of writing in videogames FOREVAH!1!1!1!1" like some people seem to think.
No, but it does manage the phenomenal feat of casting waves of suckiness back through time to tarnish the previous games. I don't actually want to play any of them again, because they'll always come down to those same pathetic endpoints.
I did not like the ending to Lost. I wasn't the only one. With the amount of people see it I bet you I wasn't the only one either.
Chances are more people will have seen and been disappointed with that ending that they did with ME.
So where is the petitions to get the ending changed?
That is my entire problem. It isn't about artistic integrity. It is about Gamers being unable to accept their position as audience.
If we find it al right to bully a creator into changing their creation to fit our sensitivities then where is the end to that? If we say yes to this then we say yes to change any works to fit our preferences. Should we remove violence from Mortal Combat to satisfy a more squeamish part of the potential audience?
No It has to be the original creators choice to change it. Everything you produce will have consequences, how you deal with that should be your choice. You may want to reconcile with your audience, then it is your choice. As it should be.
For some reason Games seem to put themselves and their medium of choice in a special pen where they have influence over the Artist because they have influence within their creations.
Draech: I did not like the ending to Lost. I wasn't the only one. With the amount of people see it I bet you I wasn't the only one either.
Chances are more people will have seen and been disappointed with that ending that they did with ME.
So where is the petitions to get the ending changed?
That is my entire problem. It isn't about artistic integrity. It is about Gamers being unable to accept their position as audience.
If we find it al right to bully a creator into changing their creation to fit our sensitivities then where is the end to that? If we say yes to this then we say yes to change any works to fit our preferences. Should we remove violence from Mortal Combat to satisfy a more squeamish part of the potential audience?
No It has to be the original creators choice to change it. Everything you produce will have consequences, how you deal with that should be your choice. You may want to reconcile with your audience, then it is your choice. As it should be.
For some reason Games seem to put themselves and their medium of choice in a special pen where they have influence over the Artist because they have influence within their creations.
Gamers position as audience is to be entertained. People may write or make video games for themselves, but the audience, or more accurately "customers" want entertainment. And if you promise an epic story where YOU have a "mass effect" on the universe, and then all you deliver is the same ending with 3 different colors....you have at best, failed, at worst, lied to your audience. So, the people who forgot their role in this is not the audience, its the entertainers.
Its pretty much why tons of paintings go unnoticed, shows get canceled, and garage bands break up. You may think you are awesome, your circle of friends may think they are awesome, you may even be awesome in a sense. But none of that makes a lick of difference if the audience doesn't like it. Again, an audience isn't there to service the entertainer and lap up whatever crap may spew from their heads. The entertainer is there to service the audience.
So, if someone wants to be an artist and make stuff they like but nobody else does, they can be. Just don't expect a fan base to form or for an existing one to not get pissed when they preorder what they expect to be an epic masterpiece and it turns out to be crap.
Draech: I did not like the ending to Lost. I wasn't the only one. With the amount of people see it I bet you I wasn't the only one either.
Chances are more people will have seen and been disappointed with that ending that they did with ME.
So where is the petitions to get the ending changed?
That is my entire problem. It isn't about artistic integrity. It is about Gamers being unable to accept their position as audience.
If we find it al right to bully a creator into changing their creation to fit our sensitivities then where is the end to that? If we say yes to this then we say yes to change any works to fit our preferences. Should we remove violence from Mortal Combat to satisfy a more squeamish part of the potential audience?
No It has to be the original creators choice to change it. Everything you produce will have consequences, how you deal with that should be your choice. You may want to reconcile with your audience, then it is your choice. As it should be.
For some reason Games seem to put themselves and their medium of choice in a special pen where they have influence over the Artist because they have influence within their creations.
Gamers position as audience is to be entertained. People may write or make video games for themselves, but the audience, or more accurately "customers" want entertainment. And if you promise an epic story where YOU have a "mass effect" on the universe, and then all you deliver is the same ending with 3 different colors....you have at best, failed, at worst, lied to your audience. So, the people who forgot their role in this is not the audience, its the entertainers.
Its pretty much why tons of paintings go unnoticed, shows get canceled, and garage bands break up. You may think you are awesome, your circle of friends may think they are awesome, you may even be awesome in a sense. But none of that makes a lick of difference if the audience doesn't like it. Again, an audience isn't there to service the entertainer and lap up whatever crap may spew from their heads. The entertainer is there to service the audience.
So, if someone wants to be an artist and make stuff they like but nobody else does, they can be. Just don't expect a fan base to form or for an existing one to not get pissed when they preorder what they expect to be an epic masterpiece and it turns out to be crap.
Then that still begs the question.
Where is the petition to change the ending to lost?
It is the same problem, different audience.
Unless you want to argue you have more right to change video games than you have other mediums your whole point falls flat.
For one, The ending being changed hasn't even been confirmed yet so all this wahhh now it's not art BS can stop.
For two apart from scale, why is this different from movies having test screenings, then changing the ending when they're told it currently has a fucking stupid one? Or how is it different from a director's edition being released, normally they have radically different endings.
Wasn't there a Mass Effect book released a while back full of errors and plot-holes that is being re-written by... whoever is responsible for such things? Why is this acceptable, yet changing the end of Mass Effect 3 (an ending based off of errors and plot-holes) is somehow lessening the artistic integrity of the medium?
Dirty Hipsters: The idea that art is somehow an unequivocal expression of its creator, and that it is blasphemous to change it because of commercial disapproval seems extremely silly to me.
Every time I see one of these "but it's ART!" arguments, I recall this article from the California Literary Review, in which the author explains why, even if it is, it's bad art. A few key points about the ending:
--The reuse of art assets indicates that it was rushed --The "underthought, overpretentious" dialogue creates significant plot holes --Key themes of the series are disregarded --The symbolism doesn't make sense ("If you have to ask what it symbolizes, it didn't.") --"The inability to convey intent is the definition of failed art."
Like I said elseforum: it's actually a good thing that Bioware is being urged to fix the ending, because most artists who make mistakes like this don't get a second chance.
I was really hoping this was going to be a thread about how both sides are absolutely wrong in so many ways. How this is neither a step forward or a step back, it just fucking is. If people get their way, whoo-hoo, if they don't, who cares. In the end, Bioware made a shitty ending to Mass Effect and they might be changing it through DLC. Don't know why we are all making such a big fucking deal about this, including the outrage, the outrage against the outrage, and the eventual meta-as-fuck outrage against outrage against outrage against the outrageous.
What I don't understand is that people complained about the ending, but don't want it changed. I mean, choose a position and stick with it, but don't just go after bioware for everything they do from now on because of one mistake. And OP is right, how is this any different to Bethesda changing Fallout 3's ending??
Where is the petition to change the ending to lost?
It is the same problem, different audience.
Unless you want to argue you have more right to change video games than you have other mediums your whole point falls flat.
Narratively Lost jumped the shark a season or two before the end, and everyone who might have really cared saw it coming. Not to mention Lost was bizarre enough that the ending it did get actually fits. In order for it to be comparative, one would have had to ended it 2 seasons earlier, and for it to have been a TV show that everybody knew they were participating in the entire time. Nobody actually died, and it was all just special effects. Had they pulled that, the outcry would have been just as large.
Where is the petition to change the ending to lost?
It is the same problem, different audience.
Unless you want to argue you have more right to change video games than you have other mediums your whole point falls flat.
Narratively Lost jumped the shark a season or two before the end, and everyone who might have really cared saw it coming. Not to mention Lost was bizarre enough that the ending it did get actually fits. In order for it to be comparative, one would have had to ended it 2 seasons earlier, and for it to have been a TV show that everybody knew they were participating in the entire time. Nobody actually died, and it was all just special effects. Had they pulled that, the outcry would have been just as large.
Now you are missing my point.
If you insist on going "Lost isn't a good comparison" then ill do another example.
The ME book was a mess, but the sites that dedicated to that didn't go "change the book". They just vent "The book sucks". As they should. We are an audience. We judge. We dont rule. Really the general public found Biowares decision to retcon the book kinda weird and unnatural.
That is where the difference is. If this method of thinking becomes common place I fear for where it could end.
veloper: [quote="AntiChri5" post="9.355783.14127912"] I'll accept 2 definitions, the common broad defintition and the narrow definition:
1. art = anything made by man 2. it's Art if it costs a fortune
So by #2, the more paid DLC that ME3 gets, the more it becomes art?
Mass effect 3 on its own is not art, but once you buy 4 action figures for the DLC codes, the collectors edition, and the next two DLCs that are published...THEN, and only then, will it become art!
Draech: Where is the petition to change the ending to Lost?
Was Lost advertised as offering different outcomes based on user input?
Was Lost a product of a medium that ALLOWED for different outcomes based on user input?
Was Lost a product of a medium that allows for post-release patches, expansions, and DLC that change the content and nature of the show?
I can answer all of those questions for you, if you want. Television shows are a terrible analogue for games. Movies are a terrible analogue for games. Books are a terrible analogue for games. This facile analogy has not become any more compelling since the first time you floated it out there.
But regardless, let's accept for a moment that all these things ARE the same, and simply fall under the same nebulous umbrella, which we'll call "Art". Now, I am given to understand that your perspective is that "Art" should never, ever be altered, save at the creator's whim. No form of outside influence or input can ever be permitted, or the sanctity of the "Art" umbrella has been breached, and all of the glittering Art magic leaks out into the atmosphere, never to be recovered.
As evidence for why this should be, you will reference things like "Lost" or "Sopranos" as incidences of unpopular endings that remain unchanged, whilst handwaving examples such as "Great Expectations", "Sherlock Holmes", or the popularly referenced "Broken Steel", as incidences where works were changed due to feedback. Perhaps incomprehensibly, these changes occurred without setting their mediums back decades, or demolishing the reputations of the works in question, or decimating the definition of "art".
Let me ask you this...is "Art" now a label that can be slapped on anything to render it completely impervious to all forms of criticism, rebuke, or revision? If I half-ass something completely, then sell it to an outraged public, can I then casually dismiss all censure with the simple provision that it's art, and they just don't properly understand or appreciate it? What if Bioware changed the game in such a way that it became more meaningful? Thematically richer? More profound? More emotionally engaging? Would that not better forward the cause of "Art" then leaving it as confounding rubbish? Why must we always stare down this specious assertion that ANY change to the ME3 ending will automatically result in it becoming more lowest common denominator, when, even by the admission of its most ardent defenders, it is already poorly conceived and executed?
Draech: That is where the difference is. If this method of thinking becomes common place I fear for where it could end.
You're afraid for where what will end? The changing of art in response to feedback? Something that's been around for CENTURIES? You're afraid where that will end up, are you? Because of Mass Effect 3?
As long as we're standing on the edges of our slippery slopes, peering nervously into the alarming depths below, why don't we talk about where things end up when we can justify the existence of any piece of lazy, half-baked, incomplete nonsense as "Art". Art has a pretty shifty definition, and we could spend all day arguing about what it is, but I'm pretty sure "defense of crap" shouldn't be near the top of the list.
I think the problem here is that some people really, really, really want games to be recognized as a form of art by people who don't really like the medium. Like how I feel about (most) kinds of painting. It's not really my thing, I don't understand a lot of it, and some of it I just find silly, but I still respect it as an artistic medium.
Because of the me3 ending, these people have come directly into conflict with the people who seem to be less concerned about the outsiders perception of their medium, but more concerned about the quality of the medium itself. I would have to say that I'm part of the latter crowd, although removing the negative stigma surrounding gaming would be nice.
I think the best course of action for everyone is to simply make their opinions heard calmly and rationally, and wait for bioware to make a decision...
Yeah, that was never going to happen, and thus we have the whole shit-flinging match going on right now.
Then they can follow it up by defining "artistic integrity".
'Cause those terms are becoming pretty damn meaningless.
Becoming? I thought they pretty much started off that way.
I'll accept 2 definitions, the common broad defintition and the narrow definition:
1. art = anything made by man 2. it's Art if it costs a fortune
Oh god why the ignorance.
Art is anything intentionally made by man to be primarily judged on it's aesthetics(meaning no rational thought is involved in judging). Art doesn't mean deep, good, magnificent, or whatever. It's just a word used to label certain things. Video games are art. The fact that it's even discussed on BBC baffles me. It's retarded.
I'll accept 2 definitions, the common broad defintition and the narrow definition:
1. art = anything made by man 2. it's Art if it costs a fortune
... That poo that I did this afternoon, t'was a master piece
I POOPED TODAY = What Lead Write Staff said when they finished Mass Effect 3s ending
In all honesty though, with any creative work there is a certain integrity that the artist is entitled too... IF HE ISN'T GETTING PAID, the instant he gets paid its then open to critique and changes based on the customers opinion.
And don't get me started on the marketing lies, oh the lies. You can't hide behind Art if you had PR lie to the people you sold it to.
AntiChri5: Becoming? I thought they pretty much started off that way.
I'll accept 2 definitions, the common broad defintition and the narrow definition:
1. art = anything made by man 2. it's Art if it costs a fortune
Oh god why the ignorance.
Art is anything intentionally made by man to be primarily judged on it's aesthetics(meaning no rational thought is involved in judging). Art doesn't mean deep, good, magnificent, or whatever. It's just a word used to label certain things. Video games are art. The fact that it's even discussed on BBC baffles me. It's retarded.
Fucking hipsters.
I'm sorry, but we cannot use your definition. Games aren't made to be judged on aesthetics, rather games are made for profit and judged on entertainment value.
I'll accept 2 definitions, the common broad defintition and the narrow definition:
1. art = anything made by man 2. it's Art if it costs a fortune
Oh god why the ignorance.
Art is anything intentionally made by man to be primarily judged on it's aesthetics(meaning no rational thought is involved in judging). Art doesn't mean deep, good, magnificent, or whatever. It's just a word used to label certain things. Video games are art. The fact that it's even discussed on BBC baffles me. It's retarded.
Fucking hipsters.
I'm sorry, but we cannot use your definition. Games aren't made to be judged on aesthetics, rather games are made for profit and judged on entertainment value.
Look up the definition of aesthetics. Aesthetics doesn't mean looks.
Art is anything intentionally made by man to be primarily judged on it's aesthetics(meaning no rational thought is involved in judging). Art doesn't mean deep, good, magnificent, or whatever. It's just a word used to label certain things. Video games are art. The fact that it's even discussed on BBC baffles me. It's retarded.
Fucking hipsters.
I'm sorry, but we cannot use your definition. Games aren't made to be judged on aesthetics, rather games are made for profit and judged on entertainment value.
Look up the definition of aesthetics. Aesthetics doesn't mean looks.
Changing a piece of media for "fans" isn't a new concept either. Hell, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle originally killed off Sherlock Holmes back in "The Adventures of the Final Problem" but brought him back from the dead years later because of fan outcry and because he needed the money, effectively changing the ending of the series. Did doing this sully literature or do irreparable harm to the integrity of literature as an art-form? It certainly did not.
True, but a couple points:
1: Conan Doyle did not go back to the book after he finished it and wrote it a new ending. He just ret-conned the entire thing in a different book. That is not what people who demand a change to the ending want. What they want is to have Conan Doyle go back and rewrite the ending to the book.
2: By that time, literature had been around much longer as was a much more well regarded and established artist medium. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of games.
Also,
Think about the film industry or the music industry, not a single script, screenplay, or lyric goes unsullied by producers and corporations to create a slightly broader appeal. There isn't a single movie that wasn't altered from the writer's original vision in order to fit the screen, nor is there a single song in the world that sounds exactly as the musician who wrote it intended it to sound. Are these not works of art despite them not being direct expressions of their creators' wills?
There is a difference between editing a script before a movie is completed and released to the public, and going back to something after the fact to change it around.
adding DLC to the game wouldnt be like retconning?
Let me be frank, I'm getting really tired of the arguments that Bioware is somehow single-handedly destroying the credibility of videogames as art by the fact that they are changing the ending of Mass Effect 3 over fan outcry. At best this is extreme hyperbole, and at worst it is a total fallacy. What's making me even more sad about the whole thing is that normally level headed people, like our very own Moviebob, are suddenly turning into raging lunatics over prospect that Bioware is somehow about to irreparably damage the reputation of gaming. Nothing can be further from the truth.
The idea that art is somehow an unequivocal expression of its creator, and that it is blasphemous to change it because of commercial disapproval seems extremely silly to me. Just think back a few centuries, art was a luxury, and it was commissioned and created to the specifications of it's buyer. Back then if the buyer did not like the artist's interpretation of his demands do you know what the artist did? He changed his art so he would get paid. Somehow this didn't prevent painting or sculpture from being considered high forms of art and expression, even if it was tailored to the wishes of it's buyer.
Changing a piece of media for "fans" isn't a new concept either. Hell, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle originally killed off Sherlock Holmes back in "The Adventures of the Final Problem" but brought him back from the dead years later because of fan outcry and because he needed the money, effectively changing the ending of the series. Did doing this sully literature or do irreparable harm to the integrity of literature as an art-form? It certainly did not.
Think about the film industry or the music industry, not a single script, screenplay, or lyric goes unsullied by producers and corporations to create a slightly broader appeal. There isn't a single movie that wasn't altered from the writer's original vision in order to fit the screen, nor is there a single song in the world that sounds exactly as the musician who wrote it intended it to sound. Are these not works of art despite them not being direct expressions of their creators' wills?
As many people pointed out, this isn't even the first time something like this has happened in videogames, where fan outcry made a developer change their decision about the direction their videogame should go. Cole's appearance in inFamous 2 was changed back to his original form because of fan outcry, and most people only considered this a good thing, with many praising Sucker Punch for listening to fan's complaints. Bethesda also retroactively changed Fallout 3's infamously bad ending with DLC, exactly how Bioware is planning, and no one batted an eye. Only good things were said about this change, and people didn't get up in arms about stifling artistic expression.
If there was ever a time to have been angry, it should have come before now, because Bioware isn't setting a precedent here, it's just following one that has already been set. Bioware isn't doing any damage to the videogame industry buy changing the ending of Mass Effect 3, all they are doing is making their own game better, making a little money, and making their fans happier while doing it.
Honestly, would it be better or more artistic if Bioware shunned their fans and instead took the Ninja Theory approach and told fans to fuck off because they were doing everything the way they wanted and didn't care what anyone thought? Of course not, because acting that way is ASININE.
Captcha says: face the music